1989 PLP 543 (SCMR)
SHER MUHAMNIAD — Petitioner Versus GHULAM FARID and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 543 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SHER MUHAMNIAD — Petitioner Versus GHULAM FARID and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 543 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 543 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 543 (SCMR) (SHER MUHAMNIAD — Petitioner Versus GHULAM FARID and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Hamiduddin, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th May. 1988.
- Ch. Hamiduddin, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 29-4-1984 in W.Ps. Nos.3414 and 3515 of 1983).
S.4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Vendee's plea that pre emptor's suit could not have been decreed on ground of tenancy and that suit land being "Banjar Qadeem" was not agricultural land, repelled--Findings of fact in favour of pre-emptor on question of tenancy at relevant time, were unexceptionable--Farming grass sown in suit land by respondents prior to transaction of sale, would not detract such land from being agricultural land- Earlier entry of such land as "Banjar Qadeem" was by itself not a ground to hold that same was not agricultural--No error, legal or otherwise having been found, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These are vendee's petitions in pre‑emption matters calling in question the dismissal of his two writ petitions by the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that firstly the plea of tenancy on the basis of which the respondents/pre‑emptors succeeded could not have been allowed; and secondly, that the land in question was not pre‑emptible as it was Banjar Qadeem and not agricultural land. With the help of the learned counsel, we have perused the relevant record. The findings of fact in favour of the respondents' side on the question of tenancy at the relevant time are unexceptionable. The argument that only farming grass was sown in the suit land by the respondents prior to the transaction of sale, therefore, it could not be treated as agricultural land, has not impressed us. It is well‑known that such grass is sown on some lands as a measure for improvement of their quality as also for earning cash; and thus, it has dual benefits as a cash crop and as also the treatment of land for improvement. The argument of the learned counsel that earlier the land in question was entered in the record as Banjar Oadeem it was not, therefore, agricultural land, is also devoid of force. This by itself is not a ground to hold that the suit land was not agricultural. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we do not find any' error legal or otherwise in the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused and the petitions are dismissed with costs. AA./S‑224/S Leave to appeal refused.